Mr Lavrov speaks at the Valdai Club on October 13th, 2020.
Note that the video does not include the question and answer session, which is included in the transcript below.
Complete English transcript including questions and answers.
There is no need to say that you are flattered by my participation – this is in our interests: you cannot be left on your own, since otherwise you will dream up something else, and later we will have to, as you said, exist in a new reality and sort out the mess.
But, joking aside, thank you for inviting me. I always look for ways to attend events organised by the Valdai Club, especially on the occasion of the publication of what I think is a very interesting, provocative and, as always, unconventional report, which is worthy of being studied and gives much food for thought. Let me welcome all the participants in this session. It is clear that Valdai’s intellectual and creative energy is inexhaustible. This is a good pretext to discuss, as it follows from the report’s title, what world we live in and how history is set to continue. I can state with certainty that the report is on the whole optimistic.
We should not focus only on the ways in which the world is likely to change in the foreseeable future, but also on whether we will be able to influence this change. Our position with regard to what is going on in the world is basically the same as the formulas used in the report: the “volatility” and “impulsiveness” of international life. We have been saying for a long time that the world is going through profound transformations, with the global balance of power being reshaped. There is no doubt that the substance of the modern epoch is an objective process of formation of a more democratic, multipolar international order. It is a difficult and long process. It will probably take an entire epoch.
Thus far, we can see that the rise of new centres of economic growth, financial power and political influence and these growth and influence centres’ sincere desire to establish mutually beneficial and equal relations with all others are running into resistance from a group of Western states, which are neither ready for, nor used to sharing their privileged position in the international hierarchy. This standoff is behind the state of turbulence and uncertainty described in the report.
As I said, the clash between the old and the new will take, judging by all appearances, an entire historical epoch. The sign of the current juncture is that the maximally selfish behaviour of certain state leaders is increasingly influencing real events on the international arena. A case in point is that a well-known, very rich and well-armed country bought up, at an early stage in the pandemic, or administratively redirected to its own havens cargoes with protective gear against COVID 19 intended for others. Of course, there are numerous examples of this sort and we cannot rejoice at the loss of the culture of dialogue and compromise and generally the skill of listening to others. Often there prevails the desire to issue accusations, ultimatums and demands. We believe that today, as never before, it is important to try to return to the sources and basics of diplomacy, to the painstaking, protracted, occasionally thankless, but eventually effective search for points of contact and compromises, and to the coordination of positions. We are ready for this work and are ready to conduct it with all our partners without exception.
It is encouraging that the report includes a forecast, even though Fyodor Lukyanov has described it as utopian, that in 2045 the UN will celebrate its 100th anniversary. Despite criticism, which is quite often reasonable, the organisation is serving its purpose. It is thanks to the UN that a catastrophic conflict between great powers has been prevented. Even though it has quite a few obvious drawbacks, since human products and ideas tend to be flawed, yet there is no alternative to it. In our opinion, the UN-centred architecture based on the results of WWII still has a margin of safety and untapped creative potential, first of all when it comes to maintaining a global balance between the leading international players.
It is also obvious to us that it is in the interests of the entire international community to remain committed to the fundamental principles of international law sealed in the UN Charter. It is often noted indeed that these principles have been violated, and quite frequently. But we don’t abandon traffic rules only because of regular road accidents, do we?
I believe that what we need now is something different: we must work to ensure that all countries strictly comply with the norms and principles of international law and their obligations under international conventions, and to prevent the erosion of international law or its replacement with the rules-based order promoted by our Western partners, who even avoid using the very phrase “respect for international law.” There are quite a few examples. We can see that these “rules,” as I have pointed out more than once, are being created in a narrow circle of the so-called like-minded people without any consideration for the opinions of the international community or the universal norms of international law formalised in the UN Charter, numerous universal conventions and the statutes of specialised agencies. Like traffic rules, international law has been written in blood, as we are well aware, including the blood of those who fought during WWII and who defeated Nazism. This doesn’t make it any less significant. Quite to the contrary. I believe that those who do not respect international law are risking a great deal.
I would like to cite a quotation by Dmitry Mendeleyev, who not only arranged the periodic table and allegedly invented popular drink recipes, but was also an accomplished philosopher. He pondered the importance of non-violent sustainable development. He wrote in one of his works, The Cognition of Russia: Cherished Thoughts, which was published in 1905: The idealists and materialists see the possibility of change only through revolutions, while realists say that real change only happens through gradual evolution.” This may look like a self-evident thought, but it is more important in the current international environment than ever before. For all intents and purposes, it is now crucial for politicians to remain true to realism.
The world is becoming increasingly diverse and competitive. It is hard to argue with this. It can no longer be governed from any one centre. Ironically, as Fyodor Lukyanov has already said, the novel coronavirus pandemic has become a marker of equality of all countries in the face of this common evil. It has all of a sudden shown that people in the countries that regard themselves as the beacons of the free world and democracy are as vulnerable to this disease as everybody else. We would like to hope that they will draw the right conclusion from this “discovery,” which has hit us all, both the West and the developing countries, as well as Russia, like a ton of bricks.
We are not going to force our position on anyone, but we are trying to use this medical challenge as an opportunity for developing constructive cooperation, and not only in combating the disease. We are grateful for the positive views on our coronavirus vaccine and medicine expressed in a great number of states – actually, dozens of countries have done this. I believe that this is a good example of how we should really join our efforts even in the most difficult situations and try to avoid the temptation to take advantage of the current problems to gain unilateral benefits.
This year we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Great Victory and of the United Nations. We strongly believe that it is more important now than ever before in the past decades for the leading countries’ heads to show wisdom, foresight and political will. In our opinion, the first to do this must be the leaders of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. You are aware of President Putin’s initiative to hold an in-person meeting of these five countries’ leaders. We hope that it can be held as soon as the sanitary and epidemiological situation allows. As of now, we maintain contact with our partners, discussing the summit’s concept and agenda, including some details of the potential final documents.
One more thing I would like to mention is environmental protection and adapting to the climate change. It is thoroughly addressed in your report, and with good reason, as I see it. Environmental and climate problems are no less significant today than economic or political ones, because it is human habitat that we are talking about. The Earth is our common home, which has become especially obvious in this age of globalisation and interconnectivity. We believe that we must take a non-political approach to this package of issues. Instead of turning the green agenda into yet another sphere of confrontation, mutual accusations and underhanded competition, we must use it to bring our nations together. The green agenda must not be an end in itself or a source of fortune for the corporations, which often use people’s environmental idealism for purposes that have little in common with environmental protection.
To conclude my address, I would like to say once again that it was very interesting to see how the Valdai Club leaders see the global situation and the scenarios of its further development. As Fyodor Lukyanov noted, the authors of the report did not spare words so as to help themselves and the readers to fight cognitive inertia, which is a vital condition for ordinary human activity, let alone success. The title of this report, History, To Be Continued: The Utopia of a Diverse World, has reminded me about a recent online joke according to which [Turgenev’s] Mumu is a utopia and [Nekrasov’s] Grandpa Mazai and the Hares is an anti-utopia. Of course, there’s a grain of a joke in every joke. But we would certainly choose an anti-utopian scenario, which we like much more. Unfortunately, there is no Grandpa Mazai to save humankind. As another saying goes, If you need a helping hand, it’s at the end of your arm. We are ready to look for mutually acceptable solutions together with all those who need a helping hand as well.
Question: How expedient is it to battle for multilateral organisations that are past their prime?
Sergey Lavrov: I remember the report has special speculations on this topic: the UN is a good thing, but for a revival of its spirit, it is not at all mandatory to hold on to the “letter” (judging by all appearances, the letter of the UN Charter that was written in the first half of the last century); all our reasoning should centre on the understanding of what is good and what is evil. You put all of this into the mouth of an imagined UN Secretary-General, who will rule the organisation in 2045, the year of its 100th anniversary. Incidentally, you have given him a name that reflects, if I understand it correctly, either Burmese, or North Korean, or generally Korean traditions. I do not overestimate my linguistic or historical abilities.
But let us go back to what you said – good and evil. Is sovereign equality of states good or evil? I think it is good. Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another, peaceful settlement of disputes, the principle of great power accord – all of this is the letter of the UN Charter and is written in black and white. I do not think that mankind should give up these principles despite the prospects for the modification of the structure of international organisations. Otherwise we will again find ourselves in a period of imperialist wars, colonial domination and other inequality on the international arena.
During your opening remarks, you mentioned that modern institutions were becoming inefficient and losing their importance and meaning. I would like to know what led you to this conclusion. The thing is that the only obvious and universal reason for making generalisations of this kind is, as I see it, the US policy starting from the withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. After that, there was a relatively long pause, followed by an across-the-board demolition of all arms control and non-proliferation instruments: the INF Treaty, the Treaty on Open Skies, and the START-1 Treaty that will go the same way soon. These form the international legal infrastructure of stability, which actually the entire world community definitively regarded as good and not evil.
I am also referring, apart from international treaties and agreements, directly to multilateral organisations – both the UN, and the specialised agencies it has created, and, of course, the Bretton Woods institutions (the IMF and the World Bank Group). The US has withdrawn, if I recall rightly, from UNESCO and the UN Human Rights Council, and has announced that it will pull out of the World Health Organisation (WHO). In my view, the US is also studying in a detailed and concerted manner a possibility of leaving the WTO, whose operations it has impeded for a number of years now. It uses the filibuster to block personnel appointments to the agency that deals with the resolution of disputes, thus preventing it from acquiring a quorum needed for disputes to be in fact resolved based on the WTO and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
One can also recall instances, where the United States simply does not want to implement any treaties that at least in some way restrict Washington’s free hand internationally, be it economic, trade, investment or any other sphere. The levers used are obvious, sanctions, threats, ultimatums, and so on.
Yet another trend that also gives food for thought from the point of view of the existing institutions’ viability is the following. Our Western colleagues are seeking to privatise these multilateral international organisations, as is manifested in the activities of the UN Secretariat, to mention just this body. I will not dwell upon this, but everyone is well aware who takes and how the key decisions are made and who exerts the decisive influence on the position of the Secretariat, which must be absolutely impartial and reflect the approaches of the international officialdom that takes an oath of impartiality and rejection of directives coming from any government. This also transpires in the activities of specialised agencies.
I have repeatedly cited examples of how, in fact, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) has been “raped.” In a direct and gross violation of all rules, the West has insisted on an illegitimate vote, following which it declared that the OPCW Technical Secretariat would from now on be vested with the UN Security Council’s functions and have the right to identify those to blame for various situations, where there were reasons to assume that CWC-prohibited chemical weapons had been used. Before the West “violated” this universal document, the Technical Secretariat only had the right to establish the fact of use or non-use of a prohibited chemical in response to an application from any CWC member state.
When they fail to organise and rush a “privatisation revolution” through legitimate organisations, topics are taken outside of universal discussions and various partnerships are established, as our French colleagues did by creating a partnership against impunity for the use of chemical weapons and a partnership against human rights violations, although there is the UN Human Rights Council, a legitimate and universal agency. But, in all evidence, not everything is working out there to the benefit of our Western colleagues. They want to have a venue where they will decide who should be punished based on their own rules rather than international law. Established outside the universal organisations of the United Nations, these partnerships create structures to fit their own needs and interests, which will punish those whom these people will identify as culprits.
The EU is actively following in the footsteps of the US, increasingly relying on the threat of sanctions. Brussels has created two mechanisms to punish those, who, in its opinion, will use chemical weapons and violate human rights. All of this is outside of the UN Security Council and in no way tallies with the principles of the UN Charter. If this is understood to be a new reality, then, in my view, we must fight it. Good and evil will not disappear anyway. I am convinced that not only the spirit, but also the letter of the UN Charter are absolutely fine for the modern-day world, if we want it to be a little bit more democratic and just.
Question: When you are engaged in everyday diplomacy, you have no time to make analogies or reflect on which periods of time are similar and which aren’t. Still, do you have a feeling that we are living in a time that is a repetition of other periods that we either remember or don’t, but just know about from textbooks or fiction?
Sergey Lavrov: There is this good formula, a belief about how many times history repeats itself and in what form. Karl Marx was probably unaware of this, but it can repeat many times. I would say the most distinctive feature of our time is this – everyone understands that a redistribution of power is taking place, and this is exactly what our Western colleagues are fighting so adamantly, clinging to their centuries of dominance. For the sake of justice, I agree that over those past centuries (half a millennium in fact) a fierce fight for a place in the sun, for being King of the Mountain, was certainly very relevant. I agree with Dominic Lieven that humankind’s nearly unlimited ability to invent new deadly technologies is hardly reassuring. In this sense, probably, that closing phrase of his cannot be simply ignored.
Once in the midst of ‘perestroika’ one of our politicians was asked at an election campaign meeting: “Why is our life so bad?” He replied: “But is it? Our grandchildren will envy us for the life we had.” There is a homely truth in that of course, but I would prefer some lesson to be learned from the bloody wars of the past. Alas, there is another wise maxim: history teaches nothing.
Question: So, if we are in for such terrible events in the future, and will not see heaven for another 25 years, if at all, as our report tries to explain – if things are so bad, maybe Russia should, as they say now, self-isolate during the period of these terrible shocks and entirely concentrate on itself, abandoning or minimising any foreign policy ambitions? As they say, do not get angry, but focus. And let others fight their battles for global dominance or whatever prize there is.
Sergey Lavrov: I think this is another homely truth here. But it is not about self-isolating and ceasing to take care of the outer perimeter, which is of key importance from our security perspective. There is a lot of debate about this. One of the founders of Valdai Club and the Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, Sergey Karaganov, recently spoke on television about what stance we should take in this respect. Some of his ideas are questionable, but I do agree with some political analysts (this is not my invention, but they just instinctively guessed the feeling we are starting to have) that we must stop considering our Western colleagues, including the EU, as a source of assessment of our behaviour that we need to follow, or measuring ourselves with the same yardstick. They don’t know Russian arshins, they have inches. I think we need to stop looking over our shoulders at them.
Look at what happened at the recent EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting, all the moralising and lecturing there, statements that Russia missed its chance to explain what happened to Alexey Navalny. More conceptually, not so long ago, a couple of weeks ago, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen stressed how important it was to shed the illusion that Russia under the current government will be able to regain the status of the EU’s geopolitical partner. That was a drastic statement from the highest official in the European Commission. It seems to me that we need to stop looking back at these assessments.
Today I spoke with the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell for more than an hour; we got deep into detail. I told him frankly and I said so publicly: if the EU is arrogant enough to declare, with this sense of unconditional superiority, that Russia must understand there will be no “business as usual,” well, Russia wants to understand whether there could be any business at all with the European Union under these conditions. I will not go into detail, although there is a lot that could be said, about the EU behaving in an absolutely inappropriate, unacceptable manner, with regard to the same Navalny incident. This is the case with the statement that as many as five EU countries have already established the truth, and that our attempts to ask them to provide the facts that led them to those conclusions are outrageous and we cannot even question them. Remember the great actor and governor Arnold Schwarzenegger playing that tough guy in films who always, every time someone tried to express doubt, just said, trust me. Even so, I trust him more than I trust the European Union, which is now trying to use the same approach. I mean use it as a rule, and not within the framework of international law. We would like the EU and Germany to follow international law in the situation with Navalny. There is the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and the protocols thereto. We are referring to those. We ask Germany to fulfil its obligations under these international legal instruments. But Germany says, you have international law, but we have a rule. And the rule is that if we do not trust them, the blame is on us.
In the last twenty years, we have always had self-esteem. But those people who are responsible for foreign policy in the West do not understand the need for mutually respectful communication. So we should probably stop communicating with them for a while. Moreover, Ursula von der Leyen declares that geopolitical partnership is not working with the current Russian government. So be it, if that’s the way they want it.
Question: If institutions are giving way to multilateral cooperation, what should we do about the so-called near-abroad? How can we resolve problems, especially since their number is growing?
Sergey Lavrov: It is probably correct to monitor the current trend where, although we do need the multilateral organisations, despite the fact that they are facing a crisis (I have mentioned the attempts to undermine them or to replace their universal framework with some “rules” created outside the UN Charter and its very system), they should of course be complemented with more flexible forms of interaction, without a rigid structure or conventional documents. A relevant example is the G20. It is a network structure that is becoming institutionalised without losing flexibility. It does not have any written or ratified rules, but it reflects our views on the development of a multipolar world, which we are discussing now. The G20 has risen to the summit from the level of quite informal contacts maintained among finance ministers before 2010. It was decided to hold annual G20 summits after the 2008 crisis.
The fact that the G20 has been brought to the summit level is proof that from now on the G7 will not be in a position to deal with global economic matters. It is the economy and finance that were proposed as the main goals of the G20 summits since the G20 incorporates the G7, the BRICS countries and the apparently like-minded members of the BRICS Five – Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Argentina. In other words, the G20 is an almost open recognition of the multipolar world and the inability of the West in the broad meaning of the word, which includes Japan, to deal with global economic and financial problems unassisted.
At the same time, we should think about reforming the existing institutions. In this sense, the UN is an organisation that needs a regular upgrade. But this process must be gradual, consistent, coordinated and based on consensus, without any abrupt movements that could undermine the UN’s ability to function. Much attention is being given now to the deadlocked reform of the UN Security Council and the conflicting ambitions of states that have risen to new heights in the global economy and politics. When the UN was established, some of them were colonies, like India, while the People’s Republic of China did not even exist, even though the victorious nations recognised China as one of the winners in World War II, in which over 35 million Chinese lost their lives.
The situation has changed since then, and more countries are claiming a permanent seat on the UNSC. Discussions on this are underway. We believe that first of all we must correct the grossly unfair state of affairs: at least five, but often six and always more than one third of the 15 UNSC members represent Europe, whereas the developing countries are seriously underrepresented. Therefore, our position during debates on increasing the number of permanent UNSC members is that the developing countries of Asia, Latin America and definitely Africa deserve to be included. This would correct the injustice.
Since this subject is highly controversial at the UN, the countries that have recently held the chairmanship of the G20 proposed holding annual meetings of foreign ministers, who have never met in this format since the G20 summit meetings were first held. This can be interpreted as a desire to make up for the lack of progress in coordinating the new format of the UNSC by discussing many key topics within the G20 framework. When it comes to the economic and financial agenda, the G20 decisions are not binding unless approved by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Likewise, the G20 cannot take decisions that are the purview of the UN Security Council and General Assembly. But the G20 is a good platform for finding ways to align different approaches in a broad-based manner free from red tape. Another relevant example is BRICS. I believe that many more such target-oriented alliances will be established in the future.
Take the Astana format set up to coordinate a Syrian settlement. It is clearly a one-off format created to deal with a particular problem. Turkey, Iran and Russia had not created similar formats before. Russia has wonderful relations with Iran and solid ties with Turkey, but the Astana trio is a one-off group brought together to address a specific case. One more format of this kind is the OSCE Minsk Group, where the burden of decisions, even though the group is based at the OSCE, is carried by the co-chairs – Russia, the United States and France. They have been acting in a fairly well-coordinated manner, but it is nevertheless a one-off format.
The Valdai Club Report, History, To Be Continued: The Utopia of a Diverse World, can be downloaded in PDF from this source: https://valdaiclub.com/a/reports/history-to-be-continued-the-utopia-of-a-diverse/
I like the new informal look!
I hope his toying with a paperclip (?) doesn’t mean he was nervous.
Maybe means there are lots of attatchments he would like to add…but maybe not at this moment?
Russia is retreating. Just take a look at Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia/Azerbaijan and Belarus and see how the West is advancing. Russia is way overstretched with all the conflicts created by the West. You can see those countries to be NATO or de facto sooner or later. And it does not look like Russia would succeed in Syria anytime soon. In other term, Russia is bogging down in ME just as the west planned for her. It is still unbelievable the way Russia dealt and is dealing with Turkey??? So far Russia failed completely. Don’t expect NS2 to be completed any time soon. Again with no solution for Syria, Lebanon and Libya BRI will stall! Amazing to see how the Empire is fighting Russia in the west and China in the far east and bogging down both. The physic is simple. It takes time for construction but destruction is quick and easy. Russia and China need peace in order to trade and grow. The Empire won’t allow that condition by setting up conflicts, instigating wars, divide and conquer. Russia and China are pretty much divided with Russia is bogging down in the ME and the former Soviets and China is busy dealing with Taiwan, Japan and S Korea. Oh, does any one pay attention to what Merkel and Kramp-Karrenbauer are saying now?
Russia is not retreating; it is concentrating.
I am not sure what do you want to say. Russia is under huge attack from the West. That’s true. As in any war there are battles that are won and battles lost. Because West is attacking, Russia is reacting and that makes her look weaker. But history is on her side, that’s why it is not in her interest to go to war. She will win by surviving.
Russia is reorienting itself away from the failing west. Russia does not have the currently dominant currency to deal with the west in an appropriate manner, so it is accumulating currency for the post west world order, successfully so. In a post west, multipolar world, Russia has positioned itself to be one of the strongest, most important countries on the planet, along with China.
The west, under the iron rule of the infantile US, is still the dominant force on the globe, too dominant to face head on, but we are rapidly approaching a day on which this current fact will drastically change faster than most people realize. Looking at any major city in the US, it would be easier to find sunken treasure in the Atlantic than it would be to find a bridge with no homeless slowing under it, or a structurally in tact bridge for that matter, 4/5 bridges in the US are not meeting safety standards and are considered unsafe.
Flint may be the most well known and prominent case of polluted water supplies, but it is one of thousands of counties affected.
These are just 2 examples of how the empire is utterly failing and close to collapsing, they lost the ability to create and resolve, all they do now is destroy. A country which cannot guarantee its citizens one of the most basic things like clean water, is not considered a “first world, developed nation” by the wests own standards.
The fact that they have begun mindlessly pumping money into the military shows just how desperate they are, they are not only losing at every single front, they have already lost.
You are right that Russia is not able to win, currently, but neither does the west and you are not seeing far enough ahead. Russias victory may be in the future, but it is already sealed and set in stone.
Back on topic, this speech by Lavrov marks a change in their approach. Russia has always maintained, no matter what, a course towards dialogue and partnership with the west, he just said if they don’t want to talk to us, so be it. This is the first time, as far as I’m aware, that Russia openly says, screw you. They have had enough after displaying an almost infinite amount of patience with unbelievably provocative actions on the west. They have suffered insane amounts of lies, accusative, insults and aggression coming from the west. Frankly, if I was in their position, I don’t know whether I would have been able to resist the urge to punch one of the pathetic trash posing as western leaders in the face at one of the international gatherings, years before even the events in the Ukraine.
PS: I doubt anyone pays attention to what Merkel says, or AKK for that matter. Merkel is a walking corpse whose days she herself has numbered, she promised not to stand for reelection in 2021 and Germany as a whole, thanks to these 2 traitors and the joke of a person mentioned by Lavrov, Ursula von der Leyen, has crawled so far up the backside of uncle Sam, only one of Merkels feet are still visible. They want to pay the Americans a couple billion dollars to try and stop them from sanctioning Germany because of NordStream II, how pathetic is that? Who listens to anything a pathetic joke of a country like that has to say?
Lavrov is the “scout” out front on the changes and emphasizes of Russian policy.
Where he goes (with his words and actions), is where the Kremlin is putting its weight and the powers of the Russian Federation.
Of late, Lavrov has been moving Russia arms length and farther from the EU. Meanwhile, the frayed tethers to the US (treaties, high level consultations, diplomatic relationships) have separated the RF from the US.
Though sanctions have not worked as intended by the US and EU, they have acted to push apart Russia from the West. Lavrov is mapping out the road ahead and the rules of the road.
I love reading this Larchmonter445. And you know what, there is a shorthand or at least this is how I’ve integrated this and the main points …
– Gone current format of the UNSC and bring in a fair representation of members (west, sit down and be quiet)
– G7 – gone with you too – welcome G20 with a better attitude toward a multi-polar world
– Europe – if you do not display better manners, we will not speak with you. (This is a huge one)
– Reform current institutions, that would be the WTO, WHO, and a few more
– Create alliances for a specific purpose
– West, you need a little assistance to deal with your problems.
Andrei Martyanov has a good piece written as well.
Good enough summary for me.
“Of late, Lavrov has been moving Russia arms length and farther from the EU. Meanwhile, the frayed tethers to the US (treaties, high level consultations, diplomatic relationships) have separated the RF from the US.”
The opponents’ notions of prime/sole agency have a function in facilitating their purpose, but that is not necessarily the case for some others including the Russian Federation and its associates.
In another thread you make reference to the 1990’s facilitating an “educational experience” for the Russian people which in turn led to the results of the Presidential election of 1999, which did not make direct reference to agency which was also not sole/prime.
A significant part of this agency was that of the opponents – the attempts at colour revolution in Russia 1991 to 2000 particularly, but continuing until today – with a lesser assay of the encouragement of the opponents’ tendencies to conflate strategies with wishes, and to bridge doubt by belief to attain “confirmation bias”, since the Russian Federation and “The United States of America” has always been and continues to be separate.
On several ocassions through this portal since 2014, a caution that “war” is not restricted to things that go bang has been broadcast, and that all “wars” are hybrid and have been throughout history – neither sex nor war was invented in 1970 and the existence of phenomena is not dependent on their perception, nor on being “liked”.
The opponents’ creation and usage of “hybrid war” is to partly suggest that this is a new form of challenge that requires additional responses including budgets, partly to avoid analysis of their “agencies” to date.
Leadership is always a team game – coercive social relations facilitate their opponents, which is accelerated by their illusion that leadership is almost never a team game, sustained in part by “punishing” anyone who suggests the contrary.
Consequently perhaps your analysis could be enhanced by incorporating the analysis of The Babushka on October 14, 2020 · at 4:17 pm EST/EDT, to whom I apologise for not replying directly:
Russia is not retreating; it is concentrating.
which is a component of the lateral process but not a delineation of the lateral process.
Enjoy your journeys.
” since the Russian Federation and “The United States of America” has always been and continues to be separate. “
An attempt to dismiss Mr. Suslov’s view that the USSR and “The United States of America” had been at war since 1922?
“Lavrov is mapping out the road ahead and the rules of the road.”
With the possible exception of when talking about football (soccer), Mr. Lavrov is almost always very diplomatic.
So given the audience, perhaps Mr. Lavrov is also very diplomatically saying – faites vos jeux – place your bets ?
Seems to be todays extensive interview by Lavrov to 3 main russian media…rt….sputnik…komsomol
English spoken translations.
To all those denying that Russia is being directly attacked by the EU, here is your corroboration. And if you think that the US is the main enemy, think again–all the evil came from Europe and is now going home.
I hope that Russia has the wherewithal to withstand the shameless Euro Reich offensive and that it ensures it is the last one. No mercy must be shown to the enemies of humanity.
In order for Europe to live, Vatican’s Euro Reich must die–the sooner, the better.
There are enough countries that are supporting Rus and it’s people in many ways discreetly. They are from all continents but one.
I always enjoy listening to Sergey Lavrov’s speeches/interviews. Made more enjoyable by his erudition and dry sense of humour. He comes across as somebody who thinks about issues and his speeches; not somebody who’s outsourced his thinking and parrots ‘talking points’ prepared by a badly informed and equally clueless staff. How refreshing Lavrov is compared to the second-rate, second-tier, quintessential ‘ugly American’ US secretary of state.
Lavorov’s Q & A sessions are an indication of how well briefed he is. Here’s another example of how clued up he is on issues within his ambit. A very recent interview with the Russian media:
Yes but what about the rise of antichrist France headed by the monster in disguise Macron?
Please Mr Lavrov elucidate the RF view of Macron if you please as we note that a RF State Duma committee recognises Macron as fulfilling the prophesies regards the antichrist. That is a fact. A Duma committee has stated state as a fact they believe is factually a fact.
It is interesting to note that Russia seem to have come to the conclusion that attempting to have meaningful and serious discussions with their western “partners” on issues of great importance is futile. Referencing the renewal of the START treaty which runs out early next year, the US state that they have a tacit agreement with Russia after their chief negotiator flew especially to a quickly convened meeting. Russia completely debunked this, saying no agreement was reached and they will not be drawn into a one sided compromise. The EU, with it’s sanctions against some Russian officials for being involved in the absolutely absurd allegations that Russia attempted to kill Navalny with one of the most deadly nerve agents known to man (and failed) and not willing to share their “evidence”. Sergei Lavrov is right not to trust the EU if this is the way they act and treat them accordingly. Finally Russia have announced that they will no longer take part in any discussions about MH17 with the Netherlands as they won’t listen and won’t allow Russia the respect they deserve, which is not before time in my opinion. Lavrov says in one of his answers, “it is about time we stopped looking over our shoulders”. Exactly right, Russia should march on with it’s head held high towards their achievable goal of a multipolar world. There are many more countries joining this laudable goal, even if it takes an epoch as Lavrov states, and if those western countries don’t want to be part, let them lag behind and wallow in their own self importance and see where they end up. If some sensible leaders are elected to these countries, there may be hope for them, but I don’t think I will be around to see it if Lavrov is right (and I think he is) that it will take an epoch for those countries to come to their senses. I only hope that my children and grandchildren will get the chance to celebrate it.
To all those who are friendly to Russia and understand the dangers of the current situation:
The Nazi EU Reich has promulgated sanctions against a number of Russian officials.
In a vapid retort, Dimitri Peskov talks about a “deliberate unfriendly act”. Pathetic.
From next week, with the Saker’s blessing, I shall be starting a series of articles on how to weaken, cripple and ultimately destroy the Euro Reich.
Germany’s and Vatican’s lickspittles (various Masses, von der Leyens, Macrons and Borrells) should consider this an act of mercy – my methods will be much less painful than those implemented by the Russians once they awaken from their delusional Germanophilia.
Down with the Nazi EU and its black beating heart.
Here is the roll of honour–people of honour who have been targeted by the evil empire.
It is necessary to hit back at Germany and its empire immediately and hard.
Start work on restoration of the DDR – the only Germany fit for human consumption. Gather decent Germans in Moscow like you did in 1941 and help them to destroy the fascist cancer. Wake up and start harming the scum – no more innocent Russian lives lost to the satanic greed and hatred of the Germanic lizards and their disgusting French collabos.
MFA spokesperson Zakharova has made several cutting comments about Heiko Maas at todays press conference! Keep out of Belarus….Germany is using excuses to blame Russia re Navalny to cover up their attack anti russian policies
Interesting how Lavrov specifically voices his annoyance with EU boss Von der Leyen, calling her statements “drastic”.
Poor Ursula..it ‘s not easy being a rank amateur in that position. And now everybody is finding out about the disastrous tenure when she was minister of defence and also how she plagiarised her medical degree thesis…
The EU leadership is very weak. Question is, who is the real power broker behind the facade? Merkel and the CIA deepstate? Macron and his Rothschild pals?
Maria Zakharova answered my question: it’s Germany.
“We consider such statements as some tactical ploy that serves to hide Germany’s course for destruction of bilateral ties. I would like to remind you that it was Berlin that used this situation to put forward unfounded accusations, ultimatums and threats against our country, openly disregarding its own international legal obligations on providing practical aid to Russia in the investigation of the incident with the Russian citizen. Once again, it is acting as the locomotive of new anti-Russian sanctions within the EU and other multilateral structures,” Zakharova pointed out.”
Is that with or without pressure from Washington?
“Is that with or without pressure from Washington?”
The pressure comes from/through various places including but not restricted to Munich including its suburbs; Baden Wurtemburg and other Lander being divided.
And to all these, Mr. Lavrov says nothing about the North Stream 2 gas pipeline. Will it be canceled or will the sanctions not matter and will they end it?. It is a very important issue because the Navalny’s posissoning I think was to stop it.
Some of the commentary in some of the recent articles from Sputnik…
…and at least one article on Vzglyad…
…wish for Nord Stream I and II to be closed so as to let the Germans freeze to death.
I’m not sure what to make of this. If anything, the victims will be the German voters who did not vote for (that USian puppet) Merkel and/or who oppose sanctions toward Russia, not to mention the German business owners who invested buttloads of dough on the pipeline project. It’s kinda disgusting if you think about it. While the charade is understandably meant to teach the unelected EU bureaucrats and the bigwigs at the Bundestag a lesson, I wonder how this will affect the civilians who played no part in this. What would Gerhard Schroeder think?
It has been said at least once that WWI was fought to prevent Germany and Russia from forming an alliance that could rival (and possibly undercut) the British Empire. Today we’re seeing the USA and UK trying to prevent similar rapprochement.
Otto von Bismarck must be turning in his grave.
What alliance? Germany is nothing but a criminal enterprise which has marked its short existence with the holocide of the Slavs. Not even the deluded Russians are buying it any longer.
Poor Germans, they wanted so badly to be friends with the Russians that they killed over 30 million in less than 30 years – and are at it again.
Commentator ‘BF’ has multiple times discussed Bismarck in the 19th century advocating a potential economic alliance between Germany and Russia (for which he was removed from power, as I found out in his comment on Katerina’s “The mortal battle of the Perfidious Albion”, so I was only partly reiterating what he said. Just saying.
Yes, Bismarck wasn’t completely infected by a rabid Russophobia but anyone half-awake understands that the modern Germany has been the opposite of his Kissingerian “pragmatism” (some say he was a Serb). When I put Germany’s criminal history to anybody going on about England, they usually have no response. I challenge anybody to show me how England can compare with a sheer bloodthirst and genocidal lust of the Germans when it comes to Russia and Serbia.
What is rattling such people is that I am being proved right – the Germans are taking over the anti-Russian struggle and are its main instigators and co-ordinators (even according to the Russian fans). You can see on this site that only very few are still singing the old tune – the reality will see to it that they run out of voice.
Thank you for your illustration of conditioning facilitating conformance: just saying being a variant of please don’t embarass/punish me with a dash of it-wasn’t-meness?
“I shall be starting a series of articles on how to weaken, cripple and ultimately destroy the Euro Reich.”
Increasing “certainty” and the noise/signal ratio was/is beneficial, as is reliance on assumption whether concious or not.
One of the benefits of “Increasing “certainty” and the noise/signal ratio was/is beneficial, as is reliance on assumption whether concious or not.”
and a component part of why Mr. Trump and his associates are resorting to further “lets pretend”.
“What is rattling …….”?